Robert Zimmerman: "The world doesn't need any more songs

[arabicadabra]

Before Garth Brooks made it a toothpaste commercial (and Bob a fortune by doing so), To Make You Feel My Love was a fairly recent example of the power in his lyrics (at least, to me). And his two Christian albums are just amazing in their bluntness lyrically (though I prefer the next one Shot Of Love, on which, in the words of Jesus, "mercy triumphs over judgement").

[moecurlythanu]

Memo to N Singh: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Steve F.]

If you all are going to compare him to duke Ellington and Pops .....

I sure as shit didn't do that and wouldn't do that.

But I don't think he is a charlatan.

[ronmac]

If you all are going to compare him to duke Ellington and Pops, two supremely master level musicians who revolutionized music...

So, who exactly did that?

Answer me this: What did he do that was more interesting than Leadbelly or Woodie Gutherie?

Depends who you ask.

What did Guthrie do that was more psychedelic than Pink Floyd. What does it matter?

So, tell us exactly why you started this thread, if it wasn't to shit on Bob Dylan.

You seem awfully bitter about this.

[Oreb]

I did - I also mentioned Elvis and I was referring to social and historical impact. The significance of Dylan in those terms is simply a no-brainer, a fact.

Musically I think he's the best songwriter of the last century, but I'll concede that's a matter of opinion.

[ronmac]

See, if anyone was going to argue what was a "marketing ploy," you'd think they would be referring to Elvis. He didn't really write, wasn't much of a musician and did all of those crappy movies. Of course, one could argue that he did more to popularize R&R than anyone.

[Oreb]

...wasn't much of a musician

I don't argue with your other points, but this I can't agree with. He had a superb voice (his primary instrument).

He did more than popularise R&R: for better or worse he was critical in sexualising white popular music and culture. Ultimately he was tamed and controlled, but that doesn't change what he did as a youngster.

[jupiter0rjapan]

Some of the best entertainers of our times are charlatans IMO.

But seriously, not liking Dylan. I get it. Trying to claim he has no talent or worth to the world? Fuck off and die! I mean that. Your life is just like what he is talking about, we don't need that shit hanging around.

[N_Singh]

So, who exactly did that?



Depends who you ask.

What did Guthrie do that was more psychedelic than Pink Floyd. What does it matter?

So, tell us exactly why you started this thread, if it wasn't to shit on Bob Dylan.

You seem awfully bitter about this.

It was a passing remark, incidental to the main point. So I answered it. In my opinion. Anyway, I started this thread because I thought that Dylan's point about new music is very interesting and worthy of merit.

It's something personal for me, insofar as I started to write my own songs, thankfully thought better of it (basically, how in the world am a schmo like me going to write anything that is remotely even 1/10000000th worthy of any great song that has come before? No way.

It's better, I thought, to focus on the incredible amount of timeless, beautiful songs that have come before and try to interpret them, albeit in a modest sort of way (am I gonna play "Some Day My Prince May Come" better than Miles? Yeah, hell no!!! Never. ). But why not, if one really loves the songs, give one's interpretation of something one really loves? Something my teacher said when he was introducing "All the Things You Are" with his band: "the first chorus is for the composer; the rest of them belong to us".

Interpretation and improvisation are becoming lost arts, when it's expected for everyone to write original numbers ALL the time for perpetuity. And the concept of a "cover" is considered in poor taste, something a "bar band does". But there was a time when the song was everything, and it was the height of self expression to give one's interpretation of that which was, indeed "everything". It doesn't have to be jazz tunes or even show tunes. Cats have been covering Beatles songs like Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, et al practically since the Beatles began. Same thing with Stevie Wonder.

Now we see people giving wonderful interpretations to King Crimson songs: Matte Kudasai and Starless. Hell, I think I'm gong to have a go at "Starless" I think its' a beautiful, haunting melody, extremely ripe for interpretation (and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to transcribe it; I think it's in G minor). Those ladies from the Northeast England did a FANTASTIC version of it, imparting their personality on the piece in a wonderfully lyrical and haunting sort of way.

Thus, I think Dylan' s point should give pause for thought: newness for the sake of novelty or product creates a tiresome, exhausted record industry. At the same time, what fresh ground is there to cover? There is no dishonor in listening to or playing and or otherwise interpreting older tunes. What's actually interesting about, say, The National or any litany of "alternative bands" today? It was done better 30 years ago. I may not have been around for the folk revival of the 60s, but I knew my Smiths and Echo and the Bunnymen and Bauhaus Sonic Youth from the mid 80s.

Maybe not all of the glut of new stuff out there is crap, but a whole bunch of it surely is. Shit, my friend who is a big hip hop fan said he's sick and tired of the horrible crap out there today in hip hop, he's gonna go back to 1988 and KRS-One and De La Soul.

Anyway. I think I will try to hammer out a solo arrangement of Starless.

[Jay.Dee]

Interpretation and improvisation are becoming lost arts, when it's expected for everyone to write original numbers ALL the time for perpetuity. And the concept of a "cover" is considered in poor taste, something a "bar band does". But there was a time when the song was everything, and it was the height of self expression to give one's interpretation of that which was, indeed "everything". It doesn't have to be jazz tunes or even show tunes. Cats have been covering Beatles songs like Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, et al practically since the Beatles began. Same thing with Stevie Wonder.

And same thing with...

[spellbound]

“Here we are with the world in the state it is in, and we’ve got One Direction. Where are the artists writing with any real sense of angst and purpose? There are no movements at the moment. We had mod and then there was punk, but it’s so hard to start a movement now." - Roger Daltrey

[Garion81]

Ron said: I'd add Hendrix to that list.

Agreed. OK, 4.

Elvis is a gimme even more than Dylan or the Beatles, but as several have mentioned, it's a generational thing.

How about Hendrix playing Dylan? Now that was revolutionary.

[ronmac]

I don't argue with your other points, but this I can't agree with. He had a superb voice (his primary instrument).

He did more than popularise R&R: for better or worse he was critical in sexualising white popular music and culture. Ultimately he was tamed and controlled, but that doesn't change what he did as a youngster.

I'll give you both his voice and presence, too.

[cavgator]

If you all are going to compare him to duke Ellington and Pops, two supremely master level musicians who revolutionized music (creating, in my view the musical edifice, vocabulary, phrasing and grammar for the most beautiful music of the 20th century: jazz), my bullshit meter goes way up. I got no beef with anyone who likes him or not or anyone who plays simple songs with a few cowboy cords (plenty of those people I like myself, starting with Phil Ochs and Woodie) but to place them on the same plateau as Ellington or pops that's just mind-boggling. The charlatanism is analogous to the extent is massively overhyped.

Answer me this: What did he do that was more interesting than Leadbelly or Woodie Gutherie?

Like I said, he is massively hyped, mostly by baby boomers, almost exclusively for his lyrics.so much of this crap has to do with the fact that rock 'n roll was more of a marketing scheme at first for the first few years than a form of music proper and created the need, as part of the marketing scheme, to overhype otherwise pedestrian folksingers to a gargantuan degree.

Have to disagree about Dylan's place in the culture. I'm a boomer and remember him in the 1960s, but I never really was a fan. His voice almost makes Peter Hamill's bearable, his harmonica playing is poor, as is his guitar playing. Even his strong suit, his lyrics, tend to be imitative of Seeger and Guthrie. But Dylan came at the perfect time in the early 1960s and spoke to a large segment of Western culture. In a sense, he helped create the Zeitgeist of the 1960s. His influence is incalculable.

My respect for Dylan is substantial in that he was never a one-trick ideologue. He was constantly asking questions and seeking answers, not caring about the political or social ramifications of his changes in direction. He allowed himself to grow, to taste the waters of seemingly incompatible cultural streams, and in short, to live. Do I think he will be studied 200 years hence? Probably more than any other musical performer except perhaps the Beatles, not because of the quality of his music, but rather, for the timing of his arrival and the influence of his message.

[Adinfinitum]

Dylan, like his 70's clone, The Boss, are great songwriters . . . They just shouldn't sing their own songs. I prefer every cover version from these artists . . Hendrix, Manfred Mann, to the originals.

I tend to agree with Mr. Dylan, it's all been done before, but that doesn't mean there aren't creative people who can break the mold and write something outside of the box.

[N_Singh]

Dylan, like his 70's clone, The Boss, are great songwriters . . . They just shouldn't sing their own songs. I prefer every cover version from these artists . . Hendrix, Manfred Mann, to the originals.

I tend to agree with Mr. Dylan, it's all been done before, but that doesn't mean there aren't creative people who can break the mold and write something outside of the box.

Ha. Manfred Mann's "For You" is a much improved version-the original sounds like a demo in comparison.

It's funny somstimes what we think of as "simple" and what we valorize as "virtuosic". I just spent the last hour trying to figure out that mind blowing tune that's now a 27 cd box set. Everyone seems to dig the instrumental blow out that begins with Fripp holding down one note, but I've figured out Fripp's wonderful little intro and Wetton's vocal part. It's not cowboy chords but it's also not that hard to figure out.

I think the following words

Sundown Dazzling days
Gold through my eyes
But my eyes turned within
Only see
Starless and bible black

Correlate with the following notes (I think-this is about 30 minutes of transcription)
G-D-C-D-Bb
C-D-C-Bb
Bb-C-D-C-D-Bb
G-D-Bb
D-Bb-D-Bb-C-G

G minor it appears to be
No "Dylan could have wrote it" remarks, please. But it's definitely in his vocal range

[arabicadabra]

> Now, if you haven't got an answer, you'd never have a question.
And if you never had a question, then you'd never have a problem.
But if you never had a problem, well, everyone would be happy.
But if everyone was happy, there'd never be a love song. <

Ronmac, this brought a huge smile to my face - "Joy" by Harry Nilsson, a masterpiece....

[GuitarGeek]

I don't argue with your other points, but this I can't agree with. He had a superb voice (his primary instrument).

He did more than popularise R&R: for better or worse he was critical in sexualising white popular music and culture. Ultimately he was tamed and controlled, but that doesn't change what he did as a youngster.

There's several things that are worth noting about Elvis:

1. He had Scotty Moore in his first band. You think that's not important, but Scotty was one of the first guitar heroes, if you will. Check out his playing on any of those Sun recordings. Note that Bill Bruford once said hearing Scotty's guitar playing on one of Elvis' records (I forget which one) was inspirational to him.

2. Though other people are typically listed as producing the early Elvis records, from what I gather, Elvis himself was the "hands on" producer. That may seem insignificant to some, but back then, singers were expected to do whatever the producer of the session told them to do. The producer picked the songs, usually the arrangements (dictating things like tempo and "feel"), and even picking the band that backs up the singer. Elvis apparently was very adamant about doing the material he wanted to do and doing it the way he wanted to do it. Just a damn shame he insisted on burying Scotty's guitar solos on Hound Dog under those damnable Jordanaires.

3. Later in his career, instead of trying to reiterate what he had done in the 50's, or try to make "modern" rock n roll music, he went off in a bit of a different direction this sort of country/pop/gospel mishmash which I thought sounded really good. It's not better than the original, but I love his version of Chuck Berry's Promised Land. And his versions of Burning Love, Funny How Time Slips Away, Polk Salad Annie Always On My Mind, and Where Do I Go From Here. Yeah, it's kinda middle of the road music, but he really made it very worth listening. And having James Burton, Ron Tutt, and Jerry Scheff in his band, didn't hurt either.

And not was Elvis a very good singer, but his acoustic guitar playing on the early records (before he even had a drummer in his band) was real important in keeping the rhythm together.

And while Elvis appeared in a lot of crappy pictures (except Clambake, apparently, Elvis said so himself), it's been said he was actually a very good actor, who all too rarely given the chance to demonstrate it in public. It's been said Elvis was offered some real good real roles, in "serious" pictures, but that insufferable rat bastard Parker vetoed all attempts to get Elvis into some films that were worthy of his abilities. Instead, we're stuck with crap liek It Happened At The State Fair and Easy Come Easy Go (you wanna know how bad Easy Come Easy Go is? They somehow managed to make a scuba themed movie that I find absolutely unwatchable. Whoever's responsible for that debacle should have been on Mission: Impossible!).

[Oreb]

There's several things that are worth noting about Elvis...

All good points (although I think 'Change of Habit' was actually pretty good and 'Viva Las Vegas' is fun: Ann Margaret's rack covers a multitude of scripted sins).

I also agree about his later stuff. Yes, not all the material was stellar, but 'That's the Way It Is' is pretty marvellous and even flawed albums like Elvis Country have fantastic performances on them.

[JJ88]

Who cares about songwriting when you have a voice like Elvis? There's a lot of hipster-approved, 'original songwriting' both then and now that isn't worth a thing, IMHO. This sort of 'rockist' thinking is where I really part from many rock fans.

I immersed myself in his whole catalogue this year and every single period has great moments. The hardest period to sit through now is without doubt the 60s soundtrack stuff which has aged badly, but even several of those have a great ballad performance. I'd cite 'It Happened At The World's Fair'...not the worst, but it's not great. But there's a song on there 'They Remind Me Too Much Of You' which has long been a favourite of mine, since I was a kid, due to Elvis' vocal but the song is also nice. He was easily the best, most diverse vocalist of the rock 'n' roll era, IMHO.

But if ever there was a career hobbled by short-term thinking and releasing work as mere 'product', it was his. The problem the guys like Ernst Jorgensen who curate his catalogue now have is the sheer volume of released material- it's far, far too much and kind of hard for the novice to get into in a meaningful way beyond compilations. I still like the 90s decade box-sets the best, as they mostly got it down into a manageable format. But for people who want to hear Elvis the serious artist, I'd recommend the 'Elvis Is Back' album from 1960 and the 1969 Memphis sessions first.

[Oreb]

He was easily the best, most diverse vocalist of the rock 'n' roll era, IMHO.

An opinion I share. If you haven't heard it already, check out Elvis Country. The materials OK, but my God - the vocals are astounding.

[JJ88]

^You can hear versions of the songs without the 'I Was Born About 10,000 Years Ago' segue on the 'Walk A Mile In My Shoes' box. There's also undubbed versions and alternate versions on the excellent 'A Hundred Years From Now' CD.

Elvis, like The Beatles and (to bring it back to topic) Bob Dylan, is far too important an artist to summarise in a compilation.

[GuitarGeek]

All good points (although I think 'Change of Habit' was actually pretty good and 'Viva Las Vegas' is fun: Ann Margaret's rack covers a multitude of scripted sins).

Yeah, Viva Las Vegas is fun. The line about Clambake being the only good Elvis movie comes from the movie Bubba Ho-Tep, or rather, from the outtakes reel. There's a scene where Elvis is in bed, after turning the TV off in disgust (after seeing an ad for a marathon of his films), and he says "Crappy pictures, every last one of them". Bruce Campbell says the actual line was "Crappy pictures, every last one of them (wait a beat), except Clambake", but apparently Don Coscarelli cut the second part of the line. On the audio commentary, from "The King", he responds to the line as it appears in the finished film, by saying, "That's not true, Clambake was pretty good", apparently confirming that perhaps Elvis himself favored that one in particular.

I think it's Fun In Acapulco that has the song Bossa Nova Baby, which I've always liked. In the scene where he mimes the song, at the end of each chorus he dances his way back to this organ sitting at the back of the stage and pretends to play the descending organ riff that links back to the next verse. I always thought that looked cool.

I also agree about his later stuff. Yes, not all the material was stellar, but 'That's the Way It Is' is pretty marvellous and even flawed albums like Elvis Country have fantastic performances on them.

Yeah, That's The Way It Is is a pretty cool film. I love the bit where he gets down off the stage during, I think it's Love Me Tender, and walks around the room and kisses all the women at each table. I kinda wish James Burton had played a guitar solo, instead of just having the band vamp like they were recording a karaoke version of the song, but maybe Jimmy was under strict orders to not upstage Elvis or something. (shrug) Still a cool bit. I also love the bit where he's introducing I think it's Hound Dog, he knew how to entertain a crowd, not just sing the songs.

And coming back to how cool the TCB Band was, in Elvis On Tour, there's that great version of Polk Salad Sally with Jerry Scheff's bass solo. I know some people don't dig that movie because that was around the time "the decline" kicked in, but there's some fun bits. I think it's during Suspicious Minds where some woman throws her panties onstage and Elvis picks them up and says, "Excuse me, Miss, are these yours?", right there in the middle of the song.

[calyx]

GuitarGeek, would you have, let's say, 3 albums to recommend to someone willing to improve their knowledge of Elvis to illustrate the various excellent points you've made above? (I mean, outside the very obvious stuff that anyone would know)

[JJ88]

^Calyx, I did just that a few posts above! But anyway, get the 'deluxe edition' versions of 'Elvis Is Back' and 'From Elvis In Memphis'. Earlier, get 'Elvis At Sun' and the deluxe edition of 'Elvis Presley'.